I think that you'll agree with me when I tell you that there are people out in the real world that are my age (56) or even older that have no business with a gun or any other potentially lethal instument for that matter. I've seen adult individuals do some incredibly stupid things for no logical reason. Just look at the television show jackass if you can find it on television sometime. Most people who age into what is considered adulthood leave that kind of behavior behind but not always. Having said that I've also seen individuals that while they are young display remarkable emotional maturity and control. I know of a nine year old boy (nearly ten) that I would not feel in the slightest danger at all if I and his grandfather who is a little younger than I am took him out rabbit hunting and gave him a loaded 20 gauge shotgun. In a society that rewards bad behavior and lack of self control there is no incentive to be a adult at any age, but in the Confederacy it's the exact opposite. The young are instinctively taught that maturity is it's own virtue and that you "sink or swim" based on your actions and yours alone.

In this reality children are allowed to carry guns? Isn't that a bit dangerous, given their emotional immaturity?Also this looks like a lawyer's paradise with all things settled by lawsuits.Thoughts?

See Rocketman`s comment.And add that in L. Neil`s story it would be the job of the parents to judge when/if a child was responsible enough toown and carry a weapon.Who would be a better judge of your child`s level of maturity? You or some faceless government knothead?

In this reality children are allowed to carry guns? Isn't that a bit dangerous, given their emotional immaturity?Also this looks like a lawyer's paradise with all things settled by lawsuits.Thoughts?

See Rocketman`s comment.And add that in L. Neil`s story it would be the job of the parents to judge when/if a child was responsible enough toown and carry a weapon.Who would be a better judge of your child`s level of maturity? You or some faceless government knothead?

I'm pretty sure the only judge is the child having the money to buy the gun he wants.

In this reality children are allowed to carry guns? Isn't that a bit dangerous, given their emotional immaturity?Also this looks like a lawyer's paradise with all things settled by lawsuits.Thoughts?

See Rocketman`s comment.And add that in L. Neil`s story it would be the job of the parents to judge when/if a child was responsible enough toown and carry a weapon.Who would be a better judge of your child`s level of maturity? You or some faceless government knothead?

I'm pretty sure the only judge is the child having the money to buy the gun he wants.

In a legal sense yes. But as long as a parent is responsable for a child, the parents have the final say soin a child`s behavior.If said child bucks this (very human nature for this to occure up to a point) said child is claiming adult status,and adult responsability.

Kidding, kidding. Stupid part of that movie. If children can be "trusted" not to take pencils and crayons and stab their siblings and other playmates in the eyes/etc. with them, a gun is not frighteningly different in type. Just in level of damage if they do it. An eye poked out is permanent blindness, an eye shot out is probably going to cause collateral brain damage and even by the Confederate technological standards death. Such young children are easy enough to educate that there are things you don't do, Because They Can't Be Fixed. Because it's a Very Very Bad Thing. Shooting someone you simply don't like through the head is likely to be one of those things. It tends to make the neighbors skittish.

Oh, and children back in the day were quite often taught how to use firearms as soon as they could physically hold them. Unlike the modern era, where these firearms are experimented with and cause the occasional death, there were comparatively few accidents. Children knew how to handle the firearm with reasonable safety. Instead of not knowing it was loaded and trying to play guns and robbers as if it were a toy, or whatever is the genesis of these stupid incidents. It'd be like keeping a child away from the stove completely until they were eighteen and then blaming the stove when they go behind your back and get burned.

Kidding, kidding. Stupid part of that movie. If children can be "trusted" not to take pencils and crayons and stab their siblings and other playmates in the eyes/etc. with them, a gun is not frighteningly different in type. Just in level of damage if they do it. An eye poked out is permanent blindness, an eye shot out is probably going to cause collateral brain damage and even by the Confederate technological standards death. Such young children are easy enough to educate that there are things you don't do, Because They Can't Be Fixed. Because it's a Very Very Bad Thing. Shooting someone you simply don't like through the head is likely to be one of those things. It tends to make the neighbors skittish.

Oh, and children back in the day were quite often taught how to use firearms as soon as they could physically hold them. Unlike the modern era, where these firearms are experimented with and cause the occasional death, there were comparatively few accidents. Children knew how to handle the firearm with reasonable safety. Instead of not knowing it was loaded and trying to play guns and robbers as if it were a toy, or whatever is the genesis of these stupid incidents. It'd be like keeping a child away from the stove completely until they were eighteen and then blaming the stove when they go behind your back and get burned.

In short, it`s a lot more productive to world proof the child than trying to child proof the world.

How can children learn to be adults if they are denied the opportunity to do so? Remember these kids are growing up in a culture were personal responsibility is emphasized. None of them will get treated as an adult until he demonstrates the ability to handle adult responsibility. None of this just reach 18 years old, have the Maturity Fairy wave her magic wand and -- presto -- you're an adult.

How can children learn to be adults if they are denied the opportunity to do so? Remember these kids are growing up in a culture were personal responsibility is emphasized. None of them will get treated as an adult until he demonstrates the ability to handle adult responsibility. None of this just reach 18 years old, have the Maturity Fairy wave her magic wand and -- presto -- you're an adult.

That's exactly what I think is happening in the so called "real world" that we live in today. With the socialistic BS hitting us from all sides at once ( and getting worse as time goes on) more and more "adults" don't grow up because they have no incentive to be responsible. Look at the economic mess that we're in now. Do you think that if the bankers that started this mess in the first place had had the lesson of personal responsible by their parents and by life experiences that formed their early lives knocked into their thick heads that this would have happened? What's even worse is that the idiots in congress seem to be "enabling" them the way that a parent of a crack addict shelters their son or daughter by buying them drugs! Our futures and those of our children and grandchildren are being tossed out the window so that the fat cats can continue on with their lifestyles. I think though that we may be seeing the beginning of the end. I learned this weekend that in a town in New Jersey that a mayor was hung in effegy by a crowd that is enraged over high taxes there. Here's hoping.

However, on the banking front? They weren't overly stupid people. Many were complying directly with federal mandates when they issued the toxic loans. And then this federal action and the expectation of bailout if something went wrong set the stage to try and compete for any dollars coming from those toxic loans. Once they were hedged, to attempt to reduce risk. Then the insurers decided to try and get in on the action, getting paid for insuring what they all believed was a sure thing. Gotta love market meltdowns, initiated by federal action and continued by expectations of federal actions to come (since they always bailout).

However, on the banking front? They weren't overly stupid people. Many were complying directly with federal mandates when they issued the toxic loans. And then this federal action and the expectation of bailout if something went wrong set the stage to try and compete for any dollars coming from those toxic loans. Once they were hedged, to attempt to reduce risk. Then the insurers decided to try and get in on the action, getting paid for insuring what they all believed was a sure thing. Gotta love market meltdowns, initiated by federal action and continued by expectations of federal actions to come (since they always bailout).

Stupid as in low I.Q.? No. Stupid as in totally lacking in any form whatsoever of common sense? Absolutely. I seem to remember that the bankers went to the government when klinton was in office wanting to change some rules that had been in place since just after the depression. The law which excapes me right now while typing this was designed to prevent just exactly what happened to cause this. I think it was some law that prevented the banks from being involved in both the lending and hedge fund aspects at the same time and the slickmeister eliminated it. The government has plenty of blame for this mess on their own shoulders but the banks also are far from being clean as the driven snow. My guess is that ultimately something like sanity will come back into vogue and the five major banks (Bank of America, Citibank, HSBC bank, J. P. Morgan and Wells Fargo) will be allowed to die. After of course the American people are totally tapped for the next ten or fifteen generations. But that's a whole nother story.

OK, Rocketman? If someone said to you that all you had to do was take these stupid actions which seemed to result in extra profit for those who also took those stupid actions, and that you'd be paid for your losses if you incurred them, would you do it? The banks figured, correctly, that if there were any problems government would bail'em out. Unfortunately, government is going to go bankrupt trying. They kicked off a problem and it's gotten too big for them to solve it.

The fact is that simply removing such a regulation was not what caused this situation. The fact that the bankers expect that they've got no responsibility if things go south, and the fact that banking is centralized and with a single currency, is. No matter how much statists (no, I'm not being accusatory of you, just that's where this most often comes from) will try and say it was the removal of regulations that got us in this mess.

Here's hoping, ya.However, on the banking front? They weren't overly stupid people. Many were complying directly with federal mandates when they issued the toxic loans. And then this federal action and the expectation of bailout if something went wrong set the stage to try and compete for any dollars coming from those toxic loans. Once they were hedged, to attempt to reduce risk. Then the insurers decided to try and get in on the action, getting paid for insuring what they all believed was a sure thing. Gotta love market meltdowns, initiated by federal action and continued by expectations of federal actions to come (since they always bailout).

Stupid as in low I.Q.? No. Stupid as in totally lacking in any form whatsoever of common sense? Absolutely. I seem to remember that the bankers went to the government when klinton was in office wanting to change some rules that had been in place since just after the depression. The law which excapes me right now while typing this was designed to prevent just exactly what happened to cause this. I think it was some law that prevented the banks from being involved in both the lending and hedge fund aspects at the same time and the slickmeister eliminated it. The government has plenty of blame for this mess on their own shoulders but the banks also are far from being clean as the driven snow. My guess is that ultimately something like sanity will come back into vogue and the five major banks (Bank of America, Citibank, HSBC bank, J. P. Morgan and Wells Fargo) will be allowed to die. After of course the American people are totally tapped for the next ten or fifteen generations. But that's a whole nother story.

The act you're thinking of is Glass-Steagall. I recommend you read http://www.reason.com/news/show/130348.html. Though I'm not sure what this has to do with guns and children. I agree that government is too dangerous to put in anyone's hands. I'm against it.

You can always be sure of three things. Death, taxes, and government stupity. If it`s even remotely possible to screw something up, the government goons will find a way. Always expect the government goons to do the worst possible thing. You`ll never be dissappointed, and rarely be surprised. (They may do something right once in a while, even a stopped clock is right twice a day)

And very large corporations/businesses tend to be run like the government these days. Maybe because of the nonsense taught in liberal business schools these days, maybe because they try to make the government happy, or maybe simply because when something gets too big it gets fat, stupid and lazy?It`s a wonder they are not all broke.I work for a division of Chevron/Phillips. And you would not believe all the nonsense that is mandated by the head office. It`s almost like working for the government. And naturally all the nonsense is vitally important. The only thing that doesn`t seem to be a priority is making a profit so we can stay in business, keep our jobs, and make a living.